2015 April Conference Thread

[wuapinmon]

I'm hoping that doesn't apply to husbands that packed on some pounds. Otherwise my marriage may be over soon.

Yeah, I missed that one.

[myboynoah]

Good thoughts KL. When people affect the family dynamic by changing something that is so important to the family (like religion is for many), they should not be surprised when attitudes change and adjustments are made. The one who changes needs to make every effort, and then some, to bridge the gap they have created. Feeling resentful because others are having a difficult time adjusting to, and even mourning because of the new reality, is selfish.

[BlueK]

Wuap,

You do stuff all the time that you don't want to, because it makes your wife happy. You go to chick flicks, you eat indonesian cuisine, you take up ballroom dance, you visit Vancouver. For your kids, you ferry them to fencing class, you watch their boring soccer games. In none of those sacrifices do you agonize "Gee, I'm not really a chick flick fan, and I struggle with pretending to like indonesian food and soccer- I'm so unhappy and I'm such a hypocrite. Why do you need such high standards about religion? What's wrong with telling your wife, "I am struggling with some of these things, but dont worry- I will still come to church with you, and I will still stay active so I can bless our children, which I know is important to you." This is a man who really loves. The men who won't participate in church because they feel compelled to be true to themselves and their mighty struggle are just saying that their feelings of ambivalence are more important than the religious devotion of their wives and kids.

I'm in the camp that believes Indonesian cuisine is possibly the best food ever invented. By the way, well said. The issues here are complex and difficult. My problem with the guy is how he thinks it's ok to thrust all his private issues into public, likely embarrassing his family just because he's not easily getting his way.

[ERCougar]

I'm in the camp that believes Indonesian cuisine is possibly the best food ever invented. By the way, well said. The issues here are complex and difficult. My problem with the guy is how he thinks it's ok to thrust all his private issues into public, likely embarrassing his family just because he's not easily getting his way.

Yes, they are complex. That's my problem with KLs post, although I do think it's well thought out (I think wuaps is better). These are matters of conscience, meaning of life questions, not restaurant choices. I suspect his objection goes a little deeper than "not getting his way".

[Y84it]

I didn't know John Dehlin's brother posted on CS. Cool.

He certainly adores the guy.

[BlueK]

Yes, they are complex. That's my problem with KLs post, although I do think it's well thought out (I think wuaps is better). These are matters of conscience, meaning of life questions, not restaurant choices. I suspect his objection goes a little deeper than "not getting his way".

Ok, well, given the fact that he's airing things in public, has a website and wanted to make a scene at GC kind of hints to me that if his wife or kids had been doing something espeically terrible like deciding to leave him, that he probably would have said so by now. But just saying that things have changed somehow and they don't look at him the same because they feel bad because they don't think he'll be with them in the eternities, kind of says to me that he thinks they don't really have the right to have their own feelings or beliefs, or don't really deserve some time to mourn the change. He seems to want to make a life changing decision without the complications it might have in his relationships. They feel bad because they love him. They feel bad because they want to be with him for eternity.

Those aren't easy things for them to work out either, and they're not the ones who initiated the change in circumstances. If he still wants it to work out well with them then he has to be responsible for the fact that he chose to change the equation and then be patient and loving about it and they will likely respond posititvely sooner or later if they otherwise used to have a healthy relationship. Blowing it up in front of the world because you're angry you can't make a major change in your life that involves your loved ones and affects them to the core of their beliefs without them easily just falling in line and changing with you, doesn't seem to me like the best way to go about it. I don't know him personally, so it's probably not entirely fair to call him a selfish jerk, but the facts as they've been laid out so far seem to present him that way.

[ERCougar]

Ok, well, given the fact that he's airing things in public, has a website and wanted to make a scene at GC kind of hints to me that if his wife or kids had been doing something espeically terrible like deciding to leave him or whatver, that he probably would have said so. But just saying that things have changed somehow and they don't look at him the same because they feel bad because they don't think he'll be with them in the eternities, kind of says to me that he thinks they don't really have the right to have their own feelings or beliefs because his have changed.

I guess I should read his website first. All I've read is a Facebook post that a few people decided to raise their hands in objection on a sustaining vote, following in the footsteps of dozens in the early decades of the church, but apparently stepping on a lot of toes now. That people have a problem with that is weird and cultish to me. If he's publicly shaming his family, then that's on him. I was commenting more on kl's general point of following one's religious convictions, which I think is a lot more complex than a restaurant choice.

[cowboy]

Wuap,

I've had this conversation before, several years ago, with most disagreeing with me....

This is a great post, and I've always shared your perspective on this subject. I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to leave their spouse over losing faith, but I can understand why it happens for the reasons you outline. A 'if I can't be with her in the eternities, why spend my life with her only to be heartbroken at the judgement' type of mentality takes hold. Still, I've always leaned toward hoping the couple stays together and works it out, and I especially feel that way now. We've all seen people lose faith then regain it later- if not fully, at least to a degree that makes them happy to remain an active member. Elder Nielson's talk about his sister falling away was outstanding, and the takeaway message for me was that there is always a chance that someone will change their mind, and to never give up on them. Maybe it happens, and maybe it doesn't, but we should never stop loving people because they lose belief (duh), but more importantly, while we should not push, we should also not lose faith that their faith may someday return.

[Solon]

I think suffering forever sounds scarier than the loss of a congregations social safety net.

Perhaps in the abstract sense, but I think its harder to visualize some kind of ill-defined future suffering than it is to come to grips with the everyday consequences of leaving the church. Put better (maybe), the minutiae of leaving the church might hurt more than a threat of really bad things to come after you die. Especially in a heavy LDS place like Utah. The weird stares & whispers. A spouse's anger & disillusionment at watching the Eternal Family Dream fade. The feeling that you've become a project for discussion in Ward Council. The innuendo that the one leaving must be addicted to meth or porn or alcohol. The self-righteous pity that people show the still-going-to-church spouse. The way the kids start getting invited to some things more often, but the fun things less often.

People who want to leave the church but don't want to face the social/family consequences are just as spineless as the people who want "religious freedom" to slam on gays without accepting any social consequences.

[Eddie]

It's been interesting to read back over the various thoughts expressed here. I think when we marry, we expect that there will be some change over time. That said, I also think that there are some deal breaker changes, and some adaptable changes. Unfortunately, I doubt that most of us have a conversation with our future spouse regarding what these are. And the reality is, that even if we did have that conversation there is a very good chance that those would change over time too.

I think what is most interesting to me about this whole conversation are the ideas behind eternal marriage, eternal damnation, punishment, varying levels of kingdoms, etc. And in particular, the idea that we are building in our own minds what heaven is or isn't like based on assumptions and present experiences. And if you believe in the eternities, then you also have to believe that present experiences are such a very small part of who we are and what we know.

First - let me admit that I haven't thought this all the way through. And I'll come to that in a minute. But I've kind of come to the belief that - if you believe in a loving God, then you believe that he isn't looking to punish. He isn't looking to make us uncomfortable or to condemn us to misery for the eternities. So I kind of believe that when it all shakes out, He will put us in a place where we are most comfortable. If we aren't completely comfortable always being in his presence due to our lack of religiosity/spirituality, then we won't be. I interpret the different levels or kingdoms of heaven to simply mean that we will be put in a place where other people are most like us, and that is where we'll be most at ease. With that in mind, I kind of believe that we'll be happy with wherever we end up.

Now - the whole "haven't thought this all the way through" thing goes like this. I don't think we have any idea what things will be like in the hereafter. If we truly existed before this life, who knows what was important to us before and if it is the same now? Or when we add our pre-life experience to our experience on earth, what will be important to us next? I "think" I know what will be important to me and what relationships will look like. But the truth is I have no idea what relationships I had prior to this life and how important they will be to me compared to the relationships I have now.

So ultimately I just believe that we have no idea. And in the end, things will work out the way they are supposed to. And when they do, we'll all just kind of nod our heads in agreement that God is both loving and just and things ended up the way they were supposed to. We may have disappointment at missed opportunities, kind of like we do now. But in the end, everything will be OK.

[Jeff Lebowski]

People who want to leave the church but don't want to face the social/family consequences are just as spineless as the people who want "religious freedom" to slam on gays without accepting any social consequences.

Seems awfully harsh. Don't you think there are far different motivations in the two cases?

[BlueK]

I guess I should read his website first. All I've read is a Facebook post that a few people decided to raise their hands in objection on a sustaining vote, following in the footsteps of dozens in the early decades of the church, but apparently stepping on a lot of toes now. That people have a problem with that is weird and cultish to me. If he's publicly shaming his family, then that's on him. I was commenting more on kl's general point of following one's religious convictions, which I think is a lot more complex than a restaurant choice.

Well, and maybe I'm just an old dude who is more private than most and still isn't comfortable with the reality tv world we live in. I think just voting opposed and dealing with that privately with church leadership is one thing. It's another to broadcast the reasons on the internet. It shames his loved ones to broadcast his reasons, which he essentially stated as feelling upset that his leaving the church upset his family and made his relationships more complicated. Having it on a blog invites commentary from bitter folks to rip on his wife and kids. People who know them at church or anywhere else but had no idea anything was going on, now know the family's issues. I don't imagine his family is happy with that. To me at least, there is no honor in dragging them into the limelight over the fact that they're having a hard time dealing with a change in the family dynamic that he chose to initiate. But maybe in today's digital age this isn't really a big deal.

[Eddie]

Ok, well, given the fact that he's airing things in public, has a website and wanted to make a scene at GC kind of hints to me that if his wife or kids had been doing something espeically terrible like deciding to leave him, that he probably would have said so by now...

FYI - the "sample letter" on their site seems to be the letter written by Don Braegger, who is mentioned in the Tribune article and appears to have a story to match the letter ($250K in tithes & offerings, various callings, etc.)

In the letter, he talks about recently telling his children and ex-wife about his disbelief. So apparently they aren't married anymore. The fact that he told his ex-wife recently, leads me to believe that they were divorced before he began to disbelieve.

He goes on to say that the greatest contention in their family is the fact that his children won't listen to his concerns because they have been taught that to do so could lead to their own apostasy and damnation.

Yeah - I get the impression that he's just angry.

He isn't going to get the church to change their core doctrine related to eternal families and temple sealing. So I'm not sure what he could possibly accomplish - unless he thinks his kids will read what he says in the news even though they wouldn't hear it from his mouth.

The sample letter is here: http://anyopposed.org/resources/

[Solon]

Seems awfully harsh. Don't you think there are far different motivations in the two cases?

Not to me, but I don't mean to sound strident.
Conscientious decisions bring consequences.
Everybody seems to want the satisfaction of standing for something, while being unwilling to take the heat.

[Paperback Writer]

Good thoughts KL. When people affect the family dynamic by changing something that is so important to the family (like religion is for many), they should not be surprised when attitudes change and adjustments are made. The one who changes needs to make every effort, and then some, to bridge the gap they have created. Feeling resentful because others are having a difficult time adjusting to, and even mourning because of the new reality, is selfish.

What about the YM who decides not to serve a mission because he has a loss of faith or feels he never gained a testimony and has doubts about the church? He was raised in the church with the expectation that he would serve a mission. An argument can be made that it was the YM who changed or failed to develop a testimony. Afterall, his brothers all grew up in the same environment and served missions. What's his problem? Does the YM now have a gap to bridge? I would think there might be some feelings of resentment by the YM if his family is having a diffiuclt time respecting his decision not to serve and is now treating him differently. Or is the YM just being selfish?

What about his sister who marries outside the LDS faith? Is she being selfish when she feels resentment after being treated differently than her siblings who married in the temple. These scenerios hit close to home with me. My family had difficulty adjusting, and yes, there were hurt feelings and resentment. But time has helped heal and we still consider ourselves an eternal family. No one has yet objected in GC; at least to my knowledge.